Artists Using Doll Likenesses without Crediting [Mijn Schatje discussion]

I wasn't disputing this fact; I merely was commenting on the futility of taking the case to court because the court system is so finicky. Honestly, I was agreeing with the general consensus of this thread, but for whatever reason I keep wording things that lead people to believe otherwise. Perhaps it's time for me to go to bed since my 4 am writing skills aren't so sharp.

 

I said it once earlier in the thread but I'll ask again: Please do not contact any galleries/companies that have affiliated themselves with Mjin without making sure they haven't been contacted already. Chances are they already have. If you think you've found someplace new there's an email on the website for you to use to report it. We wanted to bring the issue of Mjin's art to their attention, not bombard them with emails.

(Mod, could you make a note of this on the first post in case we get some stragglers?)

 

Um... She said she didn't mean to imply. = she wasn't saying it wasn't traced. = read more carefully please?

Sorry but we've had enough attacking in this thread (and, yes trolling) that I think some things need to be read a bit more carefully by the lot of us.

 

Thank you.

I will be off to bed now though. Perhaps I'll be back in the morning when I can explain myself a bit more blatantly.

 

I apologize.

Laws have yet to catch up with the internet, so I see that as a difficult way to prove a case against anyone. The proof is all over the place now, and the people most involved with this seem to be calling defeat even before the battle has begun. Imagine two or three countries getting involved in a dispute that's basically over the internet? Is it because this case would be physically/mentally draining that they would rather this just go away instead of dealing with it head on?

 

Sarahwashere, assuming you are a legitimate person, please don't take any offense. Your viewpoint on the matter, combined with your join date and name are all very suspicious in conjuction with the trolls/sockpuppets we've had in the thread earlier.

 

She got away with lying to major companies, magazines, and galleries. I don't think she's going to change her tactics any time soon unless she's dragged to court by the copyright holders.

[edit] I just read the message from Luts. Never mind my question about a list of contacted galleries to avoid multiple warnings to the galleries. Maybe someone could compose a list for Luts of where Mijn Schatje illustrations based on Luts dolls are sold to avoid Luts getting multiple emails with snaps and bits of information.

 

Can this be screencapped and posted to the websites discussing the issues, or will there be an announcement on eluts.com?

She is still maintaining that she hasn't done anything wrong, and that her 'works' are 'homage', but she has obviously not asked for permission and her actions has hurt the creators of the dolls

 

Actually, dear, that is not true, at least not in the US. In the cases of art-copying it turns out, at least according the ABOUT.com and several other internet sources plus a lawyer that I consulted, the cases always turn on this:

You go in front of a jury of ordinary people. You show them the original image and the copy, side by side. Sometimes you show them how it was copied (as we have, here) when there was manipulation involved. Then you ask them: was this a copy? If a jury of ordinary people says "Yes it is," case closed.

Sometimes the cases are settled by a judge without the jury being involved. Again, the case is decided by a judge, who looks at the two things, looks at evidence of manipulation, and says yes or no.

To paraphrase the ABOUT.com article, it is extremely unwise to have something like this go in front of a jury, because the copier almost always loses.

Also the myth of "change something 10%" (or 20, or 30) evidently derives from the "fair use" convention, which is that you can USE roughly 10% of something legally in an artwork that is meant to be a parody or ironic visual "quotation". You can also USE 10% of something in prose if, and only if, your work is a work that is commenting or a critique of the original. BUT in art when you do this, unless the attribution is obvious (like, say the Mona Lisa) you must ask permission, pay any licensing fees, and give the credit somewhere prominent on the work itself or on the back where it is legible. Otherwise it goes right back to the court-and-jury.

I think in this case the answer the court-and-jury would make is obvious.

I also finally remembered the fantasy artist who used the checkerboard background; Sue Dawe. I found her agent's email and I am sending a link to the relevant image with a query as to whether this is a lift.

 

Has she said somewhere that she didn't know about BJD dolls? Do we have a reference for this?

 

I am happy to see that LUTS has posted to the thread... and I think it is best to do as they ask: it is better for them to contact the galleries and Mijn Schatz than an angry mob (which the organizers of the website have said all along).

I'm going to continue to share information with my friends in the art field, but I feel better knowing that some action is being taken by the copyright holders.

 

If you go onto Radiotrash's website, you will see, screencapped, an instance where she has said that "she has never seen any dolls that look like her art."

Excuse me, I misread the comment. She said (paraphrasing), "she has never seen any photos [of dolls] that look like her art."

 

OK, I have to breathe really deep as I write this because I am shaking with anger and rage. LOOK AT THIS! I KNEW I had seen this pose before!!! The shoulder and the hands - it's an exact copy!

Audrey Kawasaki's work: (from http://www.audrey-kawasaki.com/)


And now Mijn Schatje:

 

UGH, that's definitely a new low!

 

EDIT: bah, sorry, I made a bit of a useless comment... I was just a bit shocked at the Kawasaki rip.....

 

The arms were moved a little closer apart, and I think the shoulder won't be a perfect match, but the hands are spot on.

 

Sarcasticcinders - thank you! ^^

Now for something different. What is being officially done? Who has been informed as the debate has gone on? I mean, Luts, Volks etc have been informed, but what about Sony and Disney? Should we make a list of galleries etc contacted in the first post of this thread? Partially to stop the flooding of mails to these places, and partially because well ... it's easy to discuss that someone ought to know, but I would like to see companies like Disney and Sony be contacted.
I am gonna check up with some Danish art galleries and museums, to see if they are aware of her existance and her fraud. ^^

 

I believe Radiotrash, and the others involved with her website, have taken the initiative to inform everyone involved in the mijn schatje controversy. I think that they are still awaiting a few replies in regards to this.

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You know, when I look at those two pieces, I see one with so much emotion and life and feeling, and the other? Utterly sterile, stripped of passion like someone sandblasted the soul out of it and tried to cover up that fact with glitter. If I needed anything else to convince me that one of those is an original work and the other is a cut-and-paste trace job? That would have done it in a hot second. Yeah, I realize that's a far more subjective analysis, but... wow. Just -wow-.

 

I understand that being a newbie would be a red flag, but wouldn't a troll be smart enough to choose a different name? Anyways, I want to emphasize again that my viewpoint was not any different from the majority of people posting; I agree it's wrong to trace someone else's work and steal their ideas.